TexasCHLforum.com

dlsgap wrote:Last time I was in California I was a TX leo and carried without concern... This summer however I'll be traveling there as a civilian. Discussions with multiple Cali leos and researching the chp site say that travelers from out of state may have a handgun locked in a case in the trunk/cargo area (no glove box or center console) so long as it is unloaded with ammunition separate from the gun. Also, the state's limits on magazine capacity would apply. So I bought a couple 10 rounders for my drove through nm and az and I'll stop before crossing into Cali and lock it up.

I solve that by simply bringing along a gun that comes with magazines of 10 or fewer rounds capacity. That gives me a fairly broad selection:

- M&P45 full sized (10 +1 rounds)
-G26 (10 +1 rounds)
-Springfield 5” 1911 (8+1 rounds)
-G43 (6 +1 rounds)
-XDS45 (5+1 rounds)
-S&W J-frame .357 (5 rounds)

The first couple of times I made the drive to and from California after having my CHL, I brought along the M&P and a revolver. The last time I made the trip, I brought the G26. I considered also bringing along either my Mossberg 12 gauge shotty or my Marlin .30-30; but in the end I decided that traveling with a supplementary long gun was just too impractical and brought just a pistol. When I fly there (which I try to avoid doing as much as possible), I just don’t bring a gun because I simply don’t trust airline personnel in California to know what they’re doing when it comes to transporting a gun, and I don’t trust Californians generally who might observe me at an airport picking up luggage that has a gun in it.

Liberty wrote:

Pawpaw wrote: Today, which is the only measure that matters, 30 round magazines are the standard. Pretty much anything you can name had lower standards 40 - 50 years ago, if it existed at all.

20 rnd Mags were considered huge back then The M16 was garbage back in its early days but, I don't remember the magazines being much of an issue. , I'm not sure the 30rnd is an improvement, at least for non military combat situations. Darn things are just too big and get in the way. 15 and 20 seem ideal, but that is just me, YMMV.

What I haven’t seen mentioned in this thread yet, but I’ll place a bet is what actually happened, is that the rifle which the M16 replaced - the M14 - came with and used 20 round mags. Thus, 20 round mags for the original M16, which entered service in 1964. But I agree with Pawpaw, that the only standard that matters is today’s standard, and the 30 round magazine standard for the AR platform has been around for many decades now. From memory, they were originally issued to troops around 1969 with the M16A1......almost 50 years ago.... but initially, due to follower tilting, they weren’t always as reliable as the 20-rounders were. Consequently, it took a little while for the 30-rounders to get sorted out and fully integrated into service. But 30-round magazines have been standard issue since 1969.

rotor wrote:

kw5kw wrote:

jason812 wrote:Mine are simply referred to by their names, The Colt, the Shorty, the Backpack Gun, and Frankengun. Anybody that knows me, knows exactly which one I'm referring to.

When entering California, would it be best to get a rental car at the border with native (California) plates to not attract attention to yourself? I bet the police almost know if you got TX plates, you have a gun. Just a thought, I have no plans to go there anytime soon.

I've been driving from Ft. Worth to California for years to visit my daughter who has lived all over the state. I've been to San Diego to Sacramento and have never been stopped by either CHP or city officers. Just because you have Texas plates is not a reason for a stop. Just obey traffic laws and you're fine.

I've carried, while in the vehicle, all over the state. However, while walking around San Francisco or Los Angeles: never! I did not wish to be a guest in their crossbar motel on a weapons charge.

How did you legally carry in California? Are you LEO? The last time I drove into California was when I was transferred to an Air Force Base there and we were stopped at the state line for a plant and who knows what inspection. I don't know what they do now. I had lived in Los Angeles in the 60's when going to college. My experience with law enforcement then was that they had their training given by The Gestapo.

I was a California resident most of my life, until I moved to Texas in 2006. I too have carried in a vehicle, AND out walking around too, and it is totally illegal either way, absent a carry permit. When I chose to break the law - eyes wide open - it was because I felt that I was going into a situation where I’d rather end up jailed by 12 than carried by 6 if something bad happened. If you carry in your vehicle there, and you do not have a CA issued permit, you ARE breaking the law.

Now, that said, I used to be friends with both a guy who was an LEO with the CA Justice Dept, in their equivalent of the federal DEA, and a guy who was a reserve officer with LAPD. I asked both of them, separately, what they would do if they pulled someone like me over, and found a pistol in the car. Both of them told me flat out that it would be no problem. Unless there was some other compelling reason, like if I was engaged in some kind of criminal activity (besides unlawful carry), that they would simply put the gun back where they found it, and let me go. Apparently, it isn’t that uncommon. The police - rightly or wrongly - often practice a little discernment when interacting with citizens......at least they do when you’re away from centers of silliness like the Bay Area for instance.

Back when I was working in our local ER in the early 1980s, I attended at least two parties thrown by members of the Pasadena PD whom I knew through my work, and I observed off-duty sworn officers smoking weed. I know it was weed, because they passed the joint to me before I took a toke and passed it back. They had some good s......uh.....stuff.

I’m not saying it wasn’t quite a bit hypocritical, but, it did show me that not all cops necessarily agree with the laws they have to enforce.

Liberty wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: Yeah, my friend is well aware of all that. He owns more than one AR, and he is an NRA multiple discipline instructor.....a very knowledgeable guy. He is on our side. It is one thing to make sure that we are on message, but I also refuse to engage in “reverse political correctness”.

There is no such thing as “reverse political correctness”. It is "Political Correctness", Just as "reverse discrimination" is just plain old discrimination. I refer to my AR an "assault style rifle". It looks like a millitary weapon, pretty much shoots like a modern millitary style weapon and is capabable of being used in a millitary type assault (ie: no-knock or SWAT raids). I am not apologetic of the fact. A 30 rnd Mag is a high capacity magazine by almost any standard. While maybe for an AR15 10 or 15 round capacity coulds be considered lower or limmited capacity. The original intent of Stoners AR was to produce a high capacity personal weapon.

The original M16 was a selective fire 5.56mm rifle with a 20-round magazine. To my mind anything smaller would be a limmited capacity, anything larger is a high capacity, 20 rnd is standard capacity. YMMV.

At any rate it won't hurt to be forgiving of the language we use, and don't have to condemn those using high capacity clips in their assault weapons. The intended meaning is still clear.

Understood.... but you know what I meant by “reverse PC”. I simply meant our brand of PC rather than the opposition’s brand of PC.

Words DO have meaning, and I get that. The political correctness of language has more meaning in some contexts than in others. The comments my friend wrote, which I quoted above, were within the context of a private conversation between two ardent 2nd Amendment supporters. When I made his side of the conversation public (which, BTW, I told him I did and he has viewed this thread), I chose to quote him verbatim rather alter what he said, because I gave him the link to this thread. When a stranger calls my AR15 an “assault weapon”, I correct him, and explain why. When a longtime gun-owning friend whose bonafides are impeccable uses the word in a private conversation with me, I don’t even hear it that way. I know what he means. He knows that I know that he means. I know that he knows that I know what he means.....yada yada yada. If you can’t put down the sword of political correctness between friends, then why even talk with one another?

I do understand that these public pages are read by the opposition, but like I said, I chose to make public part of a private conversation, and to do it verbatim because I knew the other person would read the post.

LDB415 wrote:

C-dub wrote:I would have liked it better if he'd said "standard capacity magazines" instead of "large capacity magazines."

Yes. We must all start using proper terminology, "standard capacity magazine" and "restricted capacity magazine" or "infringed capacity magazine". Our side does way too much to make it easier for the wrong side by using their terminology. We must stop saying "assault rifle" and say "modern sporting rifle". We must never say "high capacity magazine". We must stop helping the other side.

Yeah, my friend is well aware of all that. He owns more than one AR, and he is an NRA multiple discipline instructor.....a very knowledgeable guy. He is on our side. It is one thing to make sure that we are on message, but I also refuse to engage in “reverse political correctness”.

OK, I texted a good friend of mine who is a retired CA LEO, currently living near Carson NV, but who occasionally commutes into CA for his 2nd career tech-industry job. Here was his reply:

It's more about in state residents purchasing out of state and then importing, as I have read it all. The ballot measure, Prop 63, in part, added new sections to the Penal Code concerning ammunition and amended a few others, but all are mainly centered around sales / delivery from sales and they apply to residents. See section 8 of the initiative language on the attached lnk. https://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/ini ... rms)_0.pdf

That said, presumably you would not be able to buy ammo there, but the background check requirement doesn't hit until July 1.

There is nothing about non-residents anywhere in the initiative language or the statutes that I find.

Mere possession of ammunition is not criminalized by any of the enacted statutes.

As usual, my friend brings great clarity to the issues that I ask him about.

He got back to me a little later with this:

Retired LEO carrying under LEOSA probably don't have an issue either way with ammo. Retired LEO were specifically exempted from large capacity magazines (e.g. > 10 rounds) by PC 32406 which Prop 63 amended. That actually works in our favor at the federal level on an equal protection claim as there is ample case law in the Ninth Circuit that retired LEO are no longer special and don't necessarily get to have nice things.

striker55 wrote:On the bright side they can now smoke recreational marijuana.

With their buddies at CNN: https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/ni ... -bong-rips

How does this law affect the residents of other states who travel into California with a firearm? Can they bring their usual carry ammo with them for “personal use”?